MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6957865023 · doi:10.60692/xrcb4-12b31

FRCNN-GNB: Cascade Faster R-CNN With Gabor Filters and Naïve Bayes for Enhanced Eye Detection

2021· article· en· W6957865023 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)BiometricsConvolutional neural networkBayes' theoremIris recognitionGabor filterIdentification (biology)Naive Bayes classifierCascade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research into biometric identification technologies has evolved in recent years, as most secure facilities and applications are now based on digital technology. Among the available biometric identification technologies is eye detection. The relevance and impact of the use of eye detection in a variety of biometric authentication systems are very high. The main problems associated with the accuracy of eye detection methods are occlusion or reflections from glass. In view of this, we propose a hybridized and enhanced eye detection method that uses a faster region-based convolutional neural network with Gabor filters and naive Bayes (FRCNN-GNB) model to address the problems associated with eye detection schemes. The proposed method consists of four components: convolution layers, a region proposal network, a detection network, and a decision model. The enhancement method is based on a cascade Faster R-CNN with Gabor filters and the naïve Bayes model, in which the initial bounding boxes of the eye region are detected using Faster R-CNN and the decision step is carried out using Gabor filters and the naïve Bayes model to determine which of the bounding boxes belong to the eye region. Experiments on the proposed FRCNN-GNB eye detection scheme are performed on the CASIA-IrisV4 database, and show that the accuracy in terms of eye detection is 100%. The results of the study demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed solution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207